In the Matter of the Petition by

RENEE JORDAN
2569 7th Avenue #12K

          at

New York, NY 10039-3216

P.S. Docket No. DCA 01-36

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Renee Jordan
2569 7th Avenue, #12K
New York, NY 10039-3216

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Eileen R. Jimenez
Labor Relations Specialist
United States Postal Service
380 West 33rd Street, Room 3505
New York, NY 10199-9401

Petitioner, Renee Jordan, filed a timely Petition after receiving a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets from her supervisor on January 17, 2001. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $1,015.00 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in her flexible credit account caused by Petitioner cashing a forged check.

A hearing was held in New York City on March 13, 2001.¹  The Postal Service presented testimony from three supervisors and Petitioner testified in her own behalf. Both sides relied on documents that had been filed with the Petition and the Answer, and also submitted additional documents during the hearing. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.

1. During the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner was a window clerk at the Morningside Station in New York City. She has worked as a window clerk since 1992, and has been at Morningside since 1994. (Tr. 76-77).²

2. On October 8, 1997, Petitioner cashed a U.S. Treasury check in the amount of $1,015.00 from her window clerk account, made to Christine Hunte as payee. Information from one piece of identification is recorded on the reverse side of the check.³ (Tr. 23-25; Answer, Ex. 7).

3. In due course, the check was deposited in a Postal Service account at Citibank. Sometime thereafter, the named payee, Christine Hunte, filed a claim against the United States for the amount of the check, stating that she never received the check, did not sign it, and gave no one else permission to do so. (Answer, Exs. 6 and 9).

4. The payee was reimbursed and, on December 16, 1998, the Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, directed Citibank to reimburse the Federal Reserve. (Answer, Ex. 8).

5. On January 6, 1999, Citibank debited the Postal Service account in New York City $1,015.00, and shortly thereafter the New York Finance Office directed the appropriate supervisor to issue a letter of demand to the clerk who cashed the check. (Answer, Exs. 5 and 6).

6. Petitioner was issued a letter of demand on April 1, 1999, and eventually was issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets in January 2001. (Tr. 17-21; Answer, Exs. 2A and 2D).

7. Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), contains the following pertinent provisions:

314.4 Cashing Treasury Checks

Cash Treasury checks, including USPS salary checks, provided sufficient funds are on hand. Do not retain cash for the sole purpose of cashing USPS salary checks on payday.

Require two forms of identification described in section 312.3 if the payee(s) is not known. Do not cash the check if the signatures do not match.

Note: Do not cash Treasury checks for anyone other than the payee(s) named on the face of the check. The payee, or payees if more than one name appears on the check, must endorse the check in the presence of the accepting employee.

312.3 Identifying Maker of Personal Checks

* * *

If a customer is unknown by name, record the name and identifying number from one of the following photograph-bearing documents on the check in location A on exhibit 312.1:

Driver’s license.

State-issued nondriver identification.

Passport (foreign or domestic).

Military identification card.

If none of the above is presented, enter the issuer’s name from two of the following documents on the check in location A in exhibit 312.1:

Credit card. (Do not record the credit card numbers.)

Other credential showing a signature.

8. Ms. Watson, the supervisor at Morningside since April 1997, reminded her clerks from time to time that two forms of identification were required for cashing Treasury checks. Standard training for window clerks includes training on the rules for cashing checks and money orders. (Tr. 41-46, 84).

There is no dispute in this case that the Postal Service suffered a loss of $1,015.00, and that the loss was the result of Petitioner cashing a forged Treasury check. The issue is whether Petitioner followed established procedures in cashing the check.⁴

Petitioner contends that she was not aware of the rule that two pieces of identification were required for cashing Treasury checks, and that the standard practice in all "uptown" post offices was to cash Treasury checks with only one form of identification. She contends that it was not until some time in 1998 or 1999, when there were reports of stolen checks, that any supervisor told her that two forms of identification were required.

Respondent's position is that the rules in the F-1 Handbook are clear, that all window clerks are trained to follow those rules, and that there is no evidence to support Petitioner's claim that different rules applied at the Morningside post office.

The preponderance of evidence supports Respondent's argument. The rule requiring two forms of identification for cashing Treasury checks has been in place for many years and is part of the training that all window clerks receive.⁵ The evidence presented by Petitioner, including her own testimony, that management directed clerks at Morningside to follow a different rule is not persuasive. The testimony of Ms. Watson, the supervisor at Morningside since April 1997, directly refuted this. The two unsworn, written statements presented by Petitioner are from a clerk who worked at another station and a clerk who did not regularly work as a window clerk.⁶

The record demonstrates that Petitioner failed to follow the required procedures. Accordingly, the Petition is denied and Respondent may collect $1,015.00 from Petitioner's salary.

Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge

¹ The hearing was conducted by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge via speaker-telephone from Arlington, Virginia. All other participants, including the court reporter, were present in a conference room at the hearing site.

² References to the hearing transcript are "Tr._." References to documents attached to Respondent's Answer will be "Answer, Ex._." References to documents submitted by Petitioner during the hearing will be "Pet. Ex._."

³ Petitioner's initials appear on the reverse side of the check, and the daily check list filled out by the supervisor lists Petitioner's clerk identification number as the clerk who cashed the check (Answer, Exs. 4 and 7; Tr. 26, 31-33). Petitioner testified that she does not recall the incident, but recognizes the handwriting on the reverse side of the check as being that of another clerk, Sidney Lane. She assumes that Mr. Lane accepted the identification from the customer, but did not have sufficient cash so he asked Petitioner to give him the cash and take the check. Petitioner testified that this was not uncommon and that she would have accepted the check under those circumstances with the identification information that Mr. Lane had written on the check. (Tr. 57-62, 67-69, 80). Petitioner had not raised this matter prior to the hearing, and Mr. Lane, who still works at Morningside, was not called as a witness. Whether Petitioner cashed this check herself, or for Mr. Lane as she described, does not change the result.

⁴ Even if Mr. Lane participated as described by Petitioner, she accepted responsibility for the check by placing her initials on it and providing the money from her account.

⁵ The current version of Handbook F-1 is dated November 1996. The previous version (April 1991) contained the same rule, in Section 313.22.

⁶ Pet. Exs. 1 and 2; Tr. 49.